From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the staging tree Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 06:10:21 -0700 Message-ID: <20120516131021.GA32351@kroah.com> References: <20120516185812.ce1ab57c3ec72445135a35fc@canb.auug.org.au> <201205161054.15610.arnd@arndb.de> <20120516124851.GA32064@kroah.com> <201205161303.35080.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:51921 "EHLO out1-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932658Ab2EPNKY (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 May 2012 09:10:24 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201205161303.35080.arnd@arndb.de> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Olof Johansson , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Maxime Ripard , Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 01:03:34PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 16 May 2012, Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:54:15AM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Wednesday 16 May 2012, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in > > > > arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9g20.dtsi between commit 7cb2e629a240 ("ARM: > > > > AT91: Add ADC driver to the at91sam9g20 dtsi") from the staging tree and > > > > commit 5b6089cb6f28 ("ARM: at91: add at91sam9260 DT support") from the > > > > arm-soc tree. > > > > > > > > So, I didn't know what to do with this, so I used the arm-soc version of > > > > this file (effectively throwing away the staging tree change). Hints, > > > > anyone? > > > > > > I suspect the addition of the adc node should just go into the > > > at91sam9260.dtsi file. > > > > So does that mean that the staging tree version is correct? Or that > > someone needs to send me a fixup patch here? > > The staging tree version adds contents to at91sam9g20.dtsi, and the context > gets moved to at91sam9260.dtsi in arm-soc. If we want to resolve it now, > I think the best way is to add the change to at91sam9260.dtsi in arm-soc > and let you drop that part in staging. There are no hard dependencies > since this is new code and it the driver is still correct without the > change, it simply won't find the device. Ok, so if we leave it as-is for now, we can resolve it after 3.5-rc1 is out and we see what branch ended up "winning"? :) greg k-h From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: greg@kroah.com (Greg KH) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 06:10:21 -0700 Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the staging tree In-Reply-To: <201205161303.35080.arnd@arndb.de> References: <20120516185812.ce1ab57c3ec72445135a35fc@canb.auug.org.au> <201205161054.15610.arnd@arndb.de> <20120516124851.GA32064@kroah.com> <201205161303.35080.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: <20120516131021.GA32351@kroah.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 01:03:34PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 16 May 2012, Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:54:15AM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Wednesday 16 May 2012, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in > > > > arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9g20.dtsi between commit 7cb2e629a240 ("ARM: > > > > AT91: Add ADC driver to the at91sam9g20 dtsi") from the staging tree and > > > > commit 5b6089cb6f28 ("ARM: at91: add at91sam9260 DT support") from the > > > > arm-soc tree. > > > > > > > > So, I didn't know what to do with this, so I used the arm-soc version of > > > > this file (effectively throwing away the staging tree change). Hints, > > > > anyone? > > > > > > I suspect the addition of the adc node should just go into the > > > at91sam9260.dtsi file. > > > > So does that mean that the staging tree version is correct? Or that > > someone needs to send me a fixup patch here? > > The staging tree version adds contents to at91sam9g20.dtsi, and the context > gets moved to at91sam9260.dtsi in arm-soc. If we want to resolve it now, > I think the best way is to add the change to at91sam9260.dtsi in arm-soc > and let you drop that part in staging. There are no hard dependencies > since this is new code and it the driver is still correct without the > change, it simply won't find the device. Ok, so if we leave it as-is for now, we can resolve it after 3.5-rc1 is out and we see what branch ended up "winning"? :) greg k-h